%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E-SAT---3.5.1
% Problem : SYO360^5 : 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 : n014.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 08:44:15 AM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.21s 0.28s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.21s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : Refutation
% Derivation depth : 6
% Number of leaves : 1
% Syntax : Number of formulae : 10 ( 7 unt; 0 typ; 0 def)
% Number of atoms : 16 ( 15 equ; 0 cnn)
% Maximal formula atoms : 3 ( 1 avg)
% Number of connectives : 51 ( 5 ~; 0 |; 4 &; 40 @)
% ( 0 <=>; 2 =>; 0 <=; 0 <~>)
% Maximal formula depth : 6 ( 3 avg)
% Number of types : 1 ( 1 usr)
% Number of type conns : 4 ( 4 >; 0 *; 0 +; 0 <<)
% Number of symbols : 7 ( 5 usr; 2 con; 0-2 aty)
% Number of variables : 12 ( 0 ^; 12 !; 0 ?; 12 :)
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
thf(decl_sort1,type,
a: $tType ).
thf(decl_23,type,
j: a > a ).
thf(decl_24,type,
g: ( a > a ) > a > a ).
thf(decl_25,type,
h: a > a ).
thf(decl_26,type,
f: ( a > a ) > a > a ).
thf(decl_27,type,
esk1_0: a ).
thf(cEDEC1,conjecture,
( ( ! [X1: a > a,X2: a] :
( ( f @ X1 @ X2 )
= ( g @ X1 @ X2 ) )
& ! [X3: a] :
( ( h @ X3 )
= ( j @ X3 ) ) )
=> ( ( f @ h )
= ( g @ j ) ) ),
file('/export/starexec/sandbox/tmp/tmp.F1EYVf2Jtz/E---3.1_2914084.p',cEDEC1) ).
thf(c_0_1,negated_conjecture,
~ ( ( ! [X1: a > a,X2: a] :
( ( f @ X1 @ X2 )
= ( g @ X1 @ X2 ) )
& ! [X3: a] :
( ( h @ X3 )
= ( j @ X3 ) ) )
=> ( ( f @ h )
= ( g @ j ) ) ),
inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cEDEC1]) ).
thf(c_0_2,negated_conjecture,
! [X7: a > a,X8: a,X9: a] :
( ( ( f @ X7 @ X8 )
= ( g @ X7 @ X8 ) )
& ( ( h @ X9 )
= ( j @ X9 ) )
& ( ( f @ h )
!= ( g @ j ) ) ),
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,
( ( f @ h )
!= ( g @ j ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_4,negated_conjecture,
! [X2: a] :
( ( h @ X2 )
= ( j @ X2 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_5,negated_conjecture,
( ( g @ j @ esk1_0 )
!= ( f @ h @ esk1_0 ) ),
inference(neg_ext,[status(thm)],[c_0_3]) ).
thf(c_0_6,negated_conjecture,
h = j,
inference(pos_ext,[status(thm)],[c_0_4]) ).
thf(c_0_7,negated_conjecture,
( ( g @ j @ esk1_0 )
!= ( f @ j @ esk1_0 ) ),
inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_5,c_0_6]) ).
thf(c_0_8,negated_conjecture,
! [X1: a > a,X2: a] :
( ( f @ X1 @ X2 )
= ( g @ X1 @ X2 ) ),
inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_2]) ).
thf(c_0_9,negated_conjecture,
$false,
inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_7,c_0_8])]),
[proof] ).
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYO360^5 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v4.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.21 % Computer : n014.cluster.edu
% 0.08/0.21 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.08/0.21 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.08/0.21 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.08/0.21 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.08/0.21 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.08/0.21 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.08/0.21 % DateTime : Tue Sep 29 16:48:45 UTC 2026
% 0.08/0.21 % CPUTime :
% 0.08/0.21 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.08/0.25 Running higher-order theorem proving
% 0.21/0.27 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.F1EYVf2Jtz/E---3.1_2914084.p
% 0.21/0.28 % Version: 3.5.1-ho
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSN.
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting post_as_ho10 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting new_bool_9 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with pid 2914097 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Result found by ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSN.
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.28 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.28 % Search class: HUUPS-FFSF21-SSSFFFNN
% 0.21/0.28 % partial match(2): HUUPS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh5l with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting new_bool_1 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting new_bool_2 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % SubtermCWHack with pid 2914101 completed with status 10
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting new_bool_9 with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % sh5l with pid 2914106 completed with status 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Result found by sh5l
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing class: HSSSSMSSSSSNSSN.
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 1, sine = Auto)
% 0.21/0.28 % No SInE strategy applied
% 0.21/0.28 % Search class: HUUPS-FFSF21-SSSFFFNN
% 0.21/0.28 % partial match(2): HUUPS-FFSF21-SFFFFFNN
% 0.21/0.28 % Scheduled 7 strats onto 5 cores with 1500 seconds (1500 total)
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting ehoh_best_nonlift_nonlambdatoforall with 151s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Starting sh5l with 136s (1) cores
% 0.21/0.28 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 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 : 6
% 0.21/0.28 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Initial clauses : 8
% 0.21/0.28 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 5
% 0.21/0.28 % Initial clauses in saturation : 3
% 0.21/0.28 % Processed clauses : 11
% 0.21/0.28 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % ...remaining for further processing : 11
% 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 : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Backward-rewritten : 4
% 0.21/0.28 % Generated clauses : 6
% 0.21/0.28 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 5
% 0.21/0.28 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % NegExts : 2
% 0.21/0.28 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 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 : 4
% 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 : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 0
% 0.21/0.28 % ...number of literals in the above : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Current number of archived clauses : 7
% 0.21/0.28 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 4
% 0.21/0.28 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % BW rewrite match attempts : 7
% 0.21/0.28 % BW rewrite match successes : 3
% 0.21/0.28 % Condensation attempts : 11
% 0.21/0.28 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.21/0.28 % Termbank termtop insertions : 283
% 0.21/0.28 % Search garbage collected termcells : 55
% 0.21/0.28
% 0.21/0.28 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.28 % User time : 0.004 s
% 0.21/0.28 % System time : 0.003 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Total time : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Maximum resident set size: 3576 pages
% 0.21/0.28
% 0.21/0.28 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.21/0.28 % User time : 0.007 s
% 0.21/0.28 % System time : 0.012 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Total time : 0.019 s
% 0.21/0.28 % Maximum resident set size: 4864 pages
% 0.21/0.28 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------