%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% File : E---3.5.1
% Problem : SYO369_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% Transfm : none
% Format : tptp:raw
% Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% Computer : n018.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 : Thu Sep 24 03:46:15 PM UTC 2026
% Result : Theorem 0.09s 0.42s
% Output : CNFRefutation 0.09s
% Verified :
% SZS Type : -
% Comments :
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----WARNING: Could not form TPTP format derivation
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%----ORIGINAL SYSTEM OUTPUT
% 0.00/0.03 % Problem : SYO369_8 : TPTP v9.3.1. Released v8.0.0.
% 0.00/0.05 % Command : run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.36 % Computer : n018.cluster.edu
% 0.09/0.36 % Model : x86_64 x86_64
% 0.09/0.36 % CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2620 v4 @ 2.10GHz
% 0.09/0.36 % Memory : 8046.5625MB
% 0.09/0.36 % OS : Linux 6.8.0-71-generic
% 0.09/0.36 % CPULimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % WCLimit : 300
% 0.09/0.36 % DateTime : Mon Sep 21 11:48:45 UTC 2026
% 0.09/0.36 % CPUTime :
% 0.09/0.36 Running run_E /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p 300 THM
% 0.09/0.40 Running first-order theorem proving
% 0.09/0.40 Running: /export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/eprover --delete-bad-limit=2000000000 --definitional-cnf=24 -s --print-statistics -R --print-version --proof-object --auto-schedule=8 --cpu-limit=300 /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p
% 0.09/0.42 % Version: 3.5.1
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSLSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_1 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting sh5l with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % new_bool_3 with pid 1804490 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by new_bool_3
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSLSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % SubtermCWHack with pid 1804493 completed with status 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Result found by SubtermCWHack
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing class: FSSSSLSSSSSNFFN.
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 4 strats onto 8 cores with 300 seconds (2400 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SAT001_MinMin_p005000_rr_RG with 1500s (5) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting new_bool_3 with 300s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % (lift_lambdas = 0, lambda_to_forall = 0,unroll_only_formulas = 0, sine = GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0))
% 0.09/0.42 % SinE strategy is GSinE(CountFormulas,hypos,1.5,,3,20000,1.0)
% 0.09/0.42 % Search class: FGHNF-FFSF00-SFFFFFNN
% 0.09/0.42 % Scheduled 5 strats onto 1 cores with 300 seconds (300 total)
% 0.09/0.42 % Starting SubtermCWHack with 31s (1) cores
% 0.09/0.42 % Preprocessing time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % Proof found!
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS status Theorem
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS output start CNFRefutation
% 0.09/0.42 tff(decl_23, type, cB: $o).
% 0.09/0.42 tff(decl_24, type, cA: $o).
% 0.09/0.42 tff(decl_25, type, cP: $o > $o).
% 0.09/0.42 fof(cTRIVEXT5, conjecture, (cP((cA=>cB))=>cP((~(cA)|cB))), file('/export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.p', cTRIVEXT5)).
% 0.09/0.42 fof(c_0_1, negated_conjecture, ~((cP((cA=>cB))=>cP((~(cA)|cB)))), inference(assume_negation,[status(cth)],[cTRIVEXT5])).
% 0.09/0.42 fof(c_0_2, negated_conjecture, ~((((~((cA=>cB))|cP($true))&((cA=>cB)|cP($false)))=>((~((~cA|cB))|cP($true))&(~cA|cB|cP($false))))), inference(fof_simplification,[status(thm)],[inference(fool_unroll,[status(thm)],[c_0_1])])).
% 0.09/0.42 fof(c_0_3, negated_conjecture, ((((cA|cP($true))&(~cB|cP($true)))&(~cA|cB|cP($false)))&((((cA|(~cA|cB))&(~cB|(~cA|cB)))&(~cP($false)|(~cA|cB)))&(((cA|~cP($true))&(~cB|~cP($true)))&(~cP($false)|~cP($true))))), inference(distribute,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[inference(fof_nnf,[status(thm)],[c_0_2])])])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_4, negated_conjecture, (cA|~cP($true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_5, negated_conjecture, (cA|cP($true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_6, negated_conjecture, (~cB|~cP($true)), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_7, negated_conjecture, (cP($true)|~cB), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_8, negated_conjecture, (cB|cP($false)|~cA), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_9, negated_conjecture, (cA), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_4, c_0_5])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_10, negated_conjecture, (~cB), inference(csr,[status(thm)],[c_0_6, c_0_7])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_11, negated_conjecture, (cB|~cP($false)|~cA), inference(split_conjunct,[status(thm)],[c_0_3])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_12, negated_conjecture, (cP($false)), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_8, c_0_9])]), c_0_10])).
% 0.09/0.42 cnf(c_0_13, negated_conjecture, ($false), inference(sr,[status(thm)],[inference(cn,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[inference(rw,[status(thm)],[c_0_11, c_0_9]), c_0_12])]), c_0_10]), ['proof']).
% 0.09/0.42 % SZS output end CNFRefutation
% 0.09/0.42 % Parsed axioms : 4
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed by relevancy pruning/SinE : 3
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses : 9
% 0.09/0.42 % Removed in clause preprocessing : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Initial clauses in saturation : 7
% 0.09/0.42 % Processed clauses : 6
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of these trivial : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...remaining for further processing : 5
% 0.09/0.42 % Other redundant clauses eliminated : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Clauses deleted for lack of memory : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-subsumed : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % Backward-rewritten : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % Generated clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of the previous two non-redundant : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % ...aggressively subsumed : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Contextual simplify-reflections : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Paramodulations : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Factorizations : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % NegExts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Equation resolutions : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Disequality decompositions : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Total rewrite steps : 4
% 0.09/0.42 % ...of those cached : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat checks : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check models : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional check unsatisfiable : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional clauses after purity: 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional unsat core size : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional preprocessing time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Propositional solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop preproc time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop encoding time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Success case prop solver time : 0.000
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of processed clauses : 3
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive orientable unit clauses : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Positive unorientable unit clauses: 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Negative unit clauses : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit-clauses : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of unprocessed clauses: 1
% 0.09/0.42 % ...number of literals in the above : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived formulas : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Current number of archived clauses : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Clause-clause subsumption calls (NU) : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Rec. Clause-clause subsumption calls : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Non-unit clause-clause subsumptions : 2
% 0.09/0.42 % Unit Clause-clause subsumption calls : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % Rewrite failures with RHS unbound : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match attempts : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % BW rewrite match successes : 1
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation attempts : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Condensation successes : 0
% 0.09/0.42 % Termbank termtop insertions : 388
% 0.09/0.42 % Search garbage collected termcells : 62
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.002 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.001 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.004 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 3580 pages
% 0.09/0.42
% 0.09/0.42 % -------------------------------------------------
% 0.09/0.42 % User time : 0.003 s
% 0.09/0.42 % System time : 0.006 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Total time : 0.009 s
% 0.09/0.42 % Maximum resident set size: 4608 pages
% 0.09/0.42 % E exiting
%------------------------------------------------------------------------------